Public Bill Committee

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

CBT 02 Memorandum submitted by Transport for London

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

The national concession: journeys beginning on London bus network

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in clause 4, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) for “subsection (3) below” substitute “subsections (1A) and (3) below”.
(1B) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The London Authorities shall enter into arrangements with Transport for London under subsection (1) above in respect of journeys falling within section 241(2) below.”.’.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 22, in clause 5, page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) If immediately before 1st January in any financial year it appears to Transport for London that the arrangements under section 240(1) for travel concessions for the next financial year—
(a) do not meet the requirements of section 242 below as to scope, and
(b) do not meet the requirements of section 243 below as to uniformity,
Transport for London shall notify the Secretary of State, and the arrangements for the current financial year shall be carried forward with such adjustments as the Secretary of State may in writing specify for the purpose of ensuring that travel concessions are preserved for all eligible England residents and that additional travel concessions are preserved for eligible London residents.”.’.
No. 23, in clause 5, page 4, line 30, after ‘(2)’, insert—
‘(a) for “a particular local authority or” substitute “the”;
(b) ’.
No. 24, in clause 5, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
‘(5A) Omit subsection (5).’.
No. 25, in clause 5, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘(7) Omit Schedule 16 to the 1999 Act (the London free travel scheme).’.
No. 19, in schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at end add—
‘(7) After paragraph 5(7) insert—
“(8) Where a London authority considers the amount notified by Transport for London under paragraph 5(1) to be excessive—
(a) the authority may within 7 days of being notified by Transport for London apply to the Secretary of State to review the proposed charge; and
(b) if the Secretary of State agrees that the proposed charge is excessive, then he shall notify both Transport for London and the authority of an alternative lower amount.”.’.
Clause 5 stand part.
Schedule 1 to be the First schedule to the Bill.

Paul Rowen: We now come to a specific group of amendments, which deal with London and the London boroughs. Members will have had representations from the London boroughs about the current operation of the concessionary fares scheme. Most Members will be aware that London is unique in that the arrangements for reaching a decision about the funding of the London scheme do not allow the boroughs to use an appeals mechanism if they, Transport for London and the Mayor fail to reach agreement. That is an anomaly, and the amendments would ensure that the funding of the freedom pass for London runs along the same lines as the scheme that exists in the rest of the country.
When the amendments were discussed in the other place, the Mayor of London made all sorts of ridiculous statements to the effect that, in seeking to put London on the same footing as every other authority, we were in some way or other opposed to the freedom pass, but that is not the case. We seek to ensure that the London boroughs and Transport for London can arrive at an orderly and fair agreement as to the costs of the scheme. If no annual agreement is reached, we want to ensure that there is a mechanism similar to that in the rest of the country and to extend it to involve the Secretary of State, so that there can be some form of appeals mechanism. Notwithstanding that, amendment No. 22 would ensure that the current scheme, as agreed and funded, continues while the review takes place. That is only right and fair.
The London boroughs have no say over how the scheme operates, while the Mayor has total freedom to impose any changes that he wishes. We fundamentally believe in devolving decision making as far down as possible, and giving one person the right unilaterally to impose a policy on 20-odd democratically elected London boroughs is, in our view, not satisfactory. As with the other parts of the Bill, we are talking about regularisation and a national scheme, and I hope that the Minister will see that the funding situation in London is an anomaly. We want the appeal mechanism for the London boroughs to be on the same basis as those for other authorities and passenger transport authorities. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that will be a right and proper way to proceed.

Stephen Hammond: I rise to support what the hon. Gentleman has said about the inequities in the scheme in London. I want, too, to mention amendment No. 19, which gives the Committee the opportunity to revise an iniquitous section of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, namely, the reserve free travel scheme, which is imposed on London boroughs when Transport for London or the Mayor cannot agree the annual increase. Effectively, TFL has the upper hand in negotiations and extremists can hold London boroughs to ransom. Although the scheme has never been invoked, its existence weighs too heavily in favour of TFL in negotiation and is heavily resented by the London boroughs. Indeed, all hon. Members will have received a briefing to that effect from London councils.
Since TFL was formed seven years ago, the cost of providing the pass has risen by some 52 per cent., resulting in cuts to services elsewhere and higher London council tax. TFL is now attempting to use that power to hold London council tax payers to ransom over its takeover of the north London line. TFL wants almost to double the cost of providing the pass on that line. The Association of Train Operating Companies is paid £600,000 by London boroughs, and TFL wants £1 million for the same service. Again, I venture to suggest that that will be iniquitous and will result in cuts in services and higher council tax.
The Mayor of London will claim that anyone who wishes to affect the reserve free travel scheme has some evil plan to abolish the freedom pass. Any sensible person knows that that is complete nonsense. Indeed, on Second Reading I raised the issue and the Mayor suggested in a press release that I wanted to see the pass go. That was clearly not so, and we made that point clearly. However, sometimes truth and reality do not seem to strike the Mayor. We want value for money and a better deal for Londoners, which are something that the free-spending, profligate Mayor all too often fails to understand.
Elsewhere in the Bill the Minister has introduced proposals, which we support, to ensure that disputes between operators and travel concession authorities are equitably decided. Indeed, the operators have been granted an extra 28 days to appeal if in dispute. In London, TFL—the operator—can impose the cost on those who pay, namely, the boroughs. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he had no clear plans to change the reserve free travel scheme. However, in the spirit of fair-mindedness, the Minister must recognise that the arrangement is iniquitous and unacceptable.
Amendment No. 19 would give London authorities the right of appeal against the imposition of an increased fare amount that they consider excessive. As the Minister grants and extends that right elsewherein the Bill, it would be pernicious and unfair not to extend the same rights to London authorities. Amendment No. 19 would give a period of only seven days for a London authority to register its appeal, while elsewhere others get the advantage of 56 days. The Secretary of State or his delegated authority, rather than TFL, should then decide the cost of the scheme if no agreement is reached in the negotiation period. Although it would impose some extra duties on the Secretary of State, it would bring London into line with the rest of the country. That can only be fair, justifiable and equitable.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has already expressed some concerns about the robustness of the appeal process outside London, whereby an operator can appeal to the Secretary of State if it believes that the amount that it is awarded for carrying concessionary pass holders is inadequate. I guess that that is partly recognised in the increase in the appeal period to 56 days.
As there is no mechanism in London whereby the boroughs can appeal if they consider the amount that TFL determines, as an operator, excessive, this matter must be considered of even more concern than the issue that the Joint Committee was raising in the first place. Therefore, I urge the Minister to confirm to the Committee that the Government will reconsider the matter and offer support to the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. If she is unable to give us reassurance, I should like, with your discretion, Mr. Bayley, to find some way of testing the Committee’s view on the matter.

Gillian Merron: These amendments bring us to the thorny issue of the London reserve free travel scheme. Lord Davies of Oldham, representing the Government in the other place, discussed it in considerable detail during debates on the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for echoing much of what has already been put on the record, because the Government’s position has not changed.
The purpose of the reserve free travel scheme is to guarantee concessionary travel in London in situations where there is no agreement either among the London boroughs, or between the boroughs and Transport for London about how best to provide and to fund the national minimum.
 Amendment No. 21 seeks to alter section 240 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to replace a discretion for London boroughs and TFL to agree arrangements to provide travel concessions with an obligation to agree arrangements that include the national concession. That would be a significant change. Arrangements for concessionary travel are different in the capital. The 1999 Act secures that the boroughs are able voluntarily to agree schemes with TFL. The voluntary arrangements are underpinned by a safety net: the reserve scheme. If the voluntary arrangements do not meet certain minimum requirements, the reserve scheme is triggered. That system has successfully delivered uninterrupted concessionary travel in the capital over the past eight years.
 The effect of the amendment would be somewhat contradictory. The ability to enter into arrangements implies that all parties do so voluntarily and by agreement. The amendment would force the parties to agree. How do we force parties to agree? Officials have designated that as a shotgun wedding of an agreement. What would happen if the parties did not agree or if an agreement or contract is breached and that leads to termination of the agreement? Simply stating baldly that something will happen is, I fear, not the same as putting in place a framework to ensure that it does happen.
There is clearly an intentional link with amendment No. 22. That introduces the idea of replacing the reserve scheme as the fallback arrangement for London with a rolling over of the current arrangements. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I am also concerned with that idea. As there is no guarantee that these arrangements would be in place, and given that we could not roll over arrangements that did not exist, we would effectively have no guarantee of concessions in London. I suspect that that is where the true purpose of amendment No. 21 lies. The logic of all this is complicated. If we force the parties to agree, there are arrangements in place, but if those arrangements are not up to scratch, we trigger the safety net. What is the safety net? It is rolling over those arrangements, but they may not be up to scratch.
Amendment No. 22 proposes that the Secretary of State would be able to specify the terms of the arrangement, but we need to pause for a moment. Has the Secretary of State not already specified the terms of the safety net? Is that not laid out clearly in legislation? In my view it is. It is called the reserve free travel scheme—the very scheme that the amendments seek to remove and replace.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are consequent upon the principles embodied in amendments Nos. 21 and 22, thus I do not propose to refer to them in detail. Amendment No. 19 brings a new element to the equation: the specific issues of cost. The amendment provides for the addition of new paragraph 5(8) to schedule 1 to the 1999 Act in relation to the London reserve free travel scheme.
Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the 1999 Act allows TFL to stipulate the charge per pass payable by London authorities to cover the costs to it of providing the concessions under the reserve free travel scheme. The amendment would allow London authorities to appeal to the Secretary of State when they consider the charge to be excessive, and for the Secretary of State to determine a lower amount if appropriate. However, paragraphs 5(3) and 5(4) of schedule 1 to the 1999 Act already specify the costs that may be included in calculating the costs of the reserve free travel scheme and any further matters that must be taken into account.
TFL will already be aware that if it is not reasonable in its assessment of costs and charges, London authorities will judicially review the determination and may even refuse to pay while a review is under way. I understand that there are genuine concerns among the London boroughs about the reserve free travel scheme and its perceived inequity. However, as we have heard—I hope in the points that I have made—it is a complex area in which, I fear, no one solution will please all people.
The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that until the London boroughs and TFL can agree a way forward with any potential change to the reserve scheme, we are not convinced of the case, which the amendments partially make, for removing the guarantee of a minimum standard of concessionary travel throughout the capital.
There has been a reference to the comments of the Mayor of London, who, of course, is able to look after himself. However, looking at the press release, the concern is the exact point that I have made. The amendments call for the abolition of the Mayor’s guarantee of the freedom pass. London Councils transport and environment committee agreed on 14 September 2006 in a briefing that it should lobby for the abolition of the London reserve scheme. In doing so, it is not surprising that for the 1 million older and disabled people in London who benefit, there are immense concerns.
Organisations such as the London Older People’s Strategies Group, Independent Living Alternatives and Counsel and Care have all expressed their members’ concerns that they should continue to receive the worthy, worthwhile and appreciated benefits of the freedom pass.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a Bill proposing a national concession for England that did not guarantee for all concessionaires resident in England the statutory minimum level of concessionary travel in London would be a very strange Bill indeed. The reserve free travel scheme best guarantees the continuation of concessionary travel in London for all people who currently benefit. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale will withdraw his amendment. I also commend to the Committee clause 5 and schedule 1.

Paul Rowen: I heard what the Minister said, and I reiterate that we do not wish to remove the freedom pass—we want the situation in London to be the same as that in the rest of the country. I shall withdraw the amendment in favour of amendment No. 19, which would provide a safety net that meets the legitimate concerns of the London boroughs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

The London free travel scheme

Amendment proposed: No. 19, in schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at end add—
‘(7) After paragraph 5(7) insert—
“(8) Where a London authority considers the amount notified by Transport for London under paragraph 5(1) to be excessive—
(a) the authority may within 7 days of being notified by Transport for London apply to the Secretary of State to review the proposed charge; and
(b) if the Secretary of State agrees that the proposed charge is excessive, then he shall notify both Transport for London and the authority of an alternative lower amount.”.’.—[Stephen Hammond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Variation of reimbursement and other administrative arrangements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I rise to make some brief comments and to seek the Minister’s reassurance because, on the face of it, the clause gives me and my colleagues some concern.
The thrust of the Bill is to extend concessionary free travel on eligible services to eligible people. Until now, the mechanisms of application to verify service provision, of operator reimbursement, and of travel concession authority reimbursement have been via local government. However, subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to alter that mechanism by order, and to impose a central system in relation to reimbursement and/or other administrative functions of the English travel concession authorities under sections 145 to 150 of the Transport Act 2000. The Secretary of State could therefore take such powers and, in effect, underfund the scheme, which would impose greater burdens on local government grants. Additionally, the Secretary of State could take such powers and, by not using the mechanisms of local government, render the whole scheme opaque, withno right of appeal for operators or for local government.
Although the clause provides a mechanism to appeal to the Secretary of State in the event that such powers are taken, the Secretary of State is not actually under an obligation to take the powers. Will the Minister therefore clarify under what circumstances the Secretary of State might wish to take such powers, thereby altering the thrust of the Bill? Will she reassure us that the relevant order would be dealt with by means of the affirmative regulatory impact procedure, and that there would therefore be an obligation to prior consultation? Will she also assure us that, notwithstanding the making of the order by affirmative procedure, there would also be a vote in the House? Will she further confirm the exact nature of the parliamentary scrutiny that is intended by the clause drafting, and, finally, will she explain the circumstances in which the clause would apply?

Gillian Merron: I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that if we were to centralise arrangements by secondary legislation, it would be consulted on and it would require an affirmative resolution. I hope that I have reassured him of the scrutiny that would be involved.

Stephen Hammond: I wish to clarify that that procedure would require a debate on the Floor of the House and a vote thereon.

Gillian Merron: The normal parliamentary arrangements would apply.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Reciprocal arrangements for providing travel concessions

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 10, page 8, line 31, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in clause 10, page 8, line 38, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

Paul Rowen: The amendments deal with reciprocal arrangements between the other nations of the United Kingdom. I wish to make it clear at the outset that by proposing a minor change from “may” to “shall”, we are not suggesting that the Secretary of State should impose complete reciprocity at the beginning for someone living in, say, the Shetland Isles to be able to use the system in London. The particular areas about which we are concerned were those referred to on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He raised the issue of authorities being on the border and circumstances in which a pensioner may need to visit a hospital that is just over the border. Under the current arrangements, there is no system in place for reciprocity. We are concerned about limited circumstances in which people in border towns may need to access services just across the border.
This a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister can assure us that such arrangements will be put in place to cover those instances when it is important that someone can access a service that is just over the border. If that does not happen, we shall disadvantage many people who might have to travel considerably further to access a hospital, whereas just a few miles down the road in, say, Scotland—as is the case in Berwick-upon-Tweed—is a hospital that people need to access.
The amendment is not about extending the provision across the piece, but dealing with a specific situation in which there is a border town and the services that people may need to use are only a few miles away. I hope that the Minister can assure us that some reciprocal arrangements will be put in place fairly quickly. That would certainly satisfy my right hon. Friend, who represents a border constituency.

Stephen Hammond: We recognise the intent of the two amendments. Indeed, we are keen to see the introduction of reciprocal arrangements for concessionary bus travel by residents in England established as soon as possible in Wales and Scotland, particularly in circumstances that are covered by the amendment.
However, my concern is that the amendment would not set any time frame by which the Secretary of State could work. Conservative Members are worried that the amendment could delay the start of the 2008 scheme in England, which would not be wise. Unless a time frame can be established, we shall be cautious about it.

Gillian Merron: I understand the intention behind the amendments from our previous discussions. I accept the wish to move swiftly forward in respect of the mutual recognition of concessionary bus passes throughout the United Kingdom. However, now is not the time. Our absolute priority must be to implement a workable, national concession in England in April 2008.
Indeed, the Bill provides for the legislative changes that would be needed to allow for mutual recognition in the future. The hon. Member for Rochdale made a specific point about short journeys across borders, to hospitals and so on. I emphasise that local authorities already have the discretionary powers that they need in order to allow their residents to cross into and out of devolved Administrations and England using their concessionary passes. That is the way to deal with that specific point. However, there is a wider point to be made. As a Government, we want older or disabled people resident anywhere in the UK to be able to travel on any eligible local bus services in the UK.
I remind the Committee that concessionary travel is a devolved policy area. One of the reasons why I cannot agree to amendment No. 14 is that we would be legislating for Welsh Ministers without proper consultation and without their agreement. Surely it is also not desirable to oblige the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to do something for which there has not yet been full consultation with the devolved Administrations, operators and users. We must ensure that the arrangements work effectively and that the important work on the practical issues is done.
 There is also no guarantee that the recognition of Scottish passes in England, as would be obliged by the amendment, would be mirrored in Scotland or Northern Ireland, by the recognition of English concessionary passes there, nor that the Scottish or Northern Irish Administrations would agree to fund travel by their concessionaries in England and Wales. Moreover, questions about eligibility, modes and timing are just some of the issues that would need to be discussed and agreed, in addition to pass recognition and funding arrangements for the reimbursement of operators. To repeat a well worn figure, from April next year the Government will be providing around £1 billion a year for concessionary travel in England. Further spending will occur in the devolved Administrations.
Any move to mutual recognition will of course incur further costs, which are extremely difficult to predict at this stage. We know from the introduction of the Scottish national scheme that people’s travel patterns change when concessions are enhanced. It would seem wise to have in place—and working well—the provision for people to travel across England in the first instance. Once those data are available, we shall have far greater certainty on the costs of extending coverage still further. Hon. Members are already pressing me for more certainty on funding and reimbursement in respect of the April 2008 changes. The Department is working to provide that certainty in England for next year, and we do not wish to put at risk all the hard work that local authorities, operators and the Government are doing in preparing for the implementation of the national concession.
 Forcing the arrangements for mutual recognition to be hastened, particularly where there is provision for local authorities to come to a sensible and local arrangement, would threaten the successful implementation of the English national concession. I hope that hon. Members would not want to do that. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen: Having made the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Orders

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 11, page 10, line 19, after ‘10’, insert ‘, [Application to Isles of Scilly]’.

Hugh Bayley: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 11, page 10, line 22, after ‘8’, insert ‘or [Application to Isles of Scilly]’.
No. 5, in clause 16, page 11, line 16, leave out ‘Bus’.
New clause 1—Application to Isles of Scilly—
‘(1) This Act, in its application to the Isles of Scilly, has effect subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(2) In particular, an order under subsection (1) may—
(a) provide for the application of this Act to water-borne public passenger transport services;
(b) amend the categories of person who are entitled to concessionary travel under this Act.’.

Paul Rowen: Earlier today, we discussed the extension of what might be classed as a committed public service vehicle. One of the classes included the use of a ferry or boat. The amendment, which I have been asked to move by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), relates to the Isles of Scilly. They merit a special mention under clause 2, where the national arrangement is extended to them. As was pointed out on Second Reading by some hon. Members, there are no buses on the Isles of Scilly, and some people have questioned why the scheme should apply there. I am sure that hon. Members know that five islands make up the Isles of Scilly, and that just over 2,000 residents live on those islands. The Isles of Scilly operate as a unitary and county council that runs all its services from a narrow council tax base.
 It is for that reason that I am asking the Minister to make a specific and special exception in extending the scheme to the Isles of Scilly. At present, the cost of the ferry boat to the mainland is £7 per trip. The council has reckoned that it will receive no more than £10,000 in the revenue support grant settlement as reimbursement of the costs of introducing a concessionary scheme. There is no way that a council could operate its own special concessionary scheme with that sum of money. Furthermore, it cannot fund such a scheme because its council tax base for providing all the services for just over 2,000 residents is so narrow.
We are asking for the same sort of arrangement that operates for Scotland. Residents from the islands of Orkney or Shetland, for example, are permitted to take one ferry journey a year to the mainland and then use the buses. I have not specified frequency in the amendments, but we are looking for some recognition from the Department that the Isles of Scilly are a special case, and that there is no way that the council, which has to fund all the other services on such a narrow council tax base, would be able to introduce its own scheme.
The amendment would extend the scheme to use of the ferry boat by residents only. The scheme would not apply to tourists who are visiting the Isles of Scilly if they use the boat—they would pay the full price—but it would enable residents to access services on the mainland via a free ferry ride.

David Clelland: Under the Bill, people who live in Tyne and Wear, for instance, will be able to use bus services in London or another part of the country. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they ought to have their fare from Tyne and Wear to London paid so that they can access services?

Paul Rowen: No, I am not suggesting that. We discussed that earlier.
It is clear that the Isles of Scilly are a special case. There are no buses there. To access buses on the mainland, residents have to take the ferry. Given that it is the only mode of public transport available to them, and given that everything is funded by only 2,000 residents, I am asking for an exception to be made for them.

Phyllis Starkey: Would not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point be that, if individuals live in rural parts of England where there are no buses, they should be given a concession to get to the nearest bus service? Otherwise, they would not be able to use the concession either.

Paul Rowen: I accept that, and that is why earlier today we introduced an amendment that would enable the Secretary of State to extend the scheme to other forms of transport. I gave an example from my constituency of a bus service that had been withdrawn. There is now a service that residents have to pay for, although they qualify for the national concessionary bus fare scheme. I would like that to be established and developed.
I would not want an immediate blanket exception—we had that discussion earlier today—but the Isles of Scilly are a special case and, given that, I have asked for an exception.

Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman has already acknowledged that the Isles of Scilly have no buses. Is he saying that, if his earlier amendment had been accepted, someone in need of community transport on the mainland who went to the Isles of Scilly would be able to access community transport free of charge there?

Paul Rowen: The amendment that I proposed this morning gave the Secretary of State the power to implement that change. Clearly, I would not have expected him to introduce a blanket exception right away; I would have expected him selectively to introduce exceptions or to extend the scheme, so that for rural areas without any other services—no bus service, for example—community transport would qualify under the concessionary fares scheme. That is fair.
I do not believe that the biggest cost would fall on rail if the scheme were extended to everyone, as the Minister said this morning. My immediate reaction would be to look at communities, particularly rural communities—the Isles of Scilly would fall under that definition—consider the alternative forms of transport that are available and ensure that those qualify under the scheme. There could be a gradual roll-out, enabling people who would otherwise not benefit from the national scheme to receive some benefit. That is all we are asking the Minister to consider.

Gillian Merron: It is interesting to see the excitement with which hon. Members debate the Isles of Scilly. I have not had the pleasure of visiting them yet, but my predecessor did, and officials were there 10 days ago to discuss transport issues with the council. One of the points they reported back to me on, about which I can assure the hon. Member for Rochdale, is that the Isles of Scilly will, as I mentioned earlier, be working closely with Cornwall county council in preparation for April 2008. I commend them for doing so.
The Bill is good news for older and disabled people, because for the first time it makes the council of the Isles of Scilly a travel concession authority, meaning that it will be able to issue concessionary passes to eligible residents that they can use anywhere in England when visiting the mainland.
I am a little bit surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, because they would give the Secretary of State two powers. First, he would be able, by order, to extend travel concessions to
“water-borne public passenger transport”
serving the Isles of Scilly, which in my language means ferries. Secondly, he would be able to change who is entitled to concessionary travel in the Isles of Scilly. The Secretary of State already has the power, under clause 8(1)(a), to expand eligibility for the national concession to new categories of people living in the Isles of Scilly. Similarly, there is a power under clause 8(1)(b) to include ferries serving the Isles of Scilly in the statutory scheme, so that they can offer free travel to all England pass-holders.
In addition, the council of the Isles of Scilly already has the power to agree voluntary schemes with transport providers, allowing discretionary travel concessions to its residents under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. That could, for example, include free travel on ferries. The people best placed to take account of unique local circumstances—no or few buses, for example, or being on an island—are those in the local authorities involved in discretionary schemes. That is why we have protected that right.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister accept that, given that that the Isles of Scilly only has a population of 2,000, the council tax base does not provide the resources to enable the introduction of a discretionary scheme providing the full panoply, including social services and education, which must have priority?

Gillian Merron: I remind the hon. Gentleman that on Second Reading, and earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, some hon. Members mentioned the funding for concessionary travel that goes to the Isles of Scilly through the formula grant system, even though there are currently no bus services operating there. It is worth gently pointing out that the council could use that money to provide travel concessions on ferry services and other modes of transport. The hon. Gentleman might take that constructive message back to the hon. Member for St. Ives, who represents constituents on the Isles of Scilly, because there is scope in that regard.
The amendments constitute unnecessary duplication and they are somewhat inappropriate. I restate my belief that it is right for local authorities, given their knowledge of local circumstances, to decide for themselves what discretionary enhancements are best for their residents. These proposals would simply duplicate powers that are already held by the Secretary of State and the council of the Isles of Scilly. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the proposals to a Division.

Paul Rowen: Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Minor and consequential amendments

Gillian Merron: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in schedule 2, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
‘1A In section 98 (travel concession schemes: further provisions with respect to participation notices), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) But if the participation notice was served on the person by one or more authorities in England only—
(a) subsection (3) above shall have effect as if for “twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the participation notice” there were substituted “fifty-six days beginning with the date provided for in relation to the participation notice by virtue of section 97(5)(a) above”; and
(b) subsection (4) above shall have effect as if for paragraph (a) there were substituted—
“(a) if the person is required by the participation notice to give a prescribed number of days’ notice (or, if no number of days is prescribed, seven days’ notice), at least that number of days before the date of the notice given to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above; or”.”’.
The amendment moves our discussion on to the important issue of the deadline that applies for operators wishing to appeal to the Secretary of State against local authority concessionary travel reimbursement arrangements. As I explained in my letter to members of the Committee on 23 May, Lord Bradshaw raised the issue of the appeals deadline in the other place. The deadline is 28 days from new or varied reimbursement arrangements taking effect, and he suggested that that was not sufficient time for operators to make an evidence-based decision on whether to submit an appeal to the Secretary of State.
Lord Bradshaw’s amendment on Third Reading on 5 February extended the deadline by which bus operators could appeal to the Secretary of State against English local authority reimbursement arrangements under the Transport Act 2000 from 28 days to 56 days from the time new or varied reimbursement arrangements come into force.
Lord Davies of Oldham, for the Government, responded favourably to the amendment on the grounds that provision of extra time should offer scope for the full gathering of high-quality data. That would mean that any appeals that operators felt compelled to make would be more firmly grounded in empirical evidence. It should also help reduce some of the uncertainty that local authorities might otherwise face from more speculative appeals.
On Third Reading, Lord Bradshaw tabled a second amendment on the issue to make changes to the Transport Act 1985, but in the event, it was not moved. Amendment No. 1 brings back the principle behind that second amendment. Under the current arrangements regarding local authority travel concession schemes, under the Transport Act 1985, an authority running a local scheme can serve an operator with a participation notice, which requires the recipient to participate in the scheme. The operator can appeal to the Secretary of State against that, and the deadline for the appeal is currently 28 days from the date of the participation notice.
I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment would largely mirror the changes already made to the Transport Act 2000 by virtue of clauses 3(4) to 3(6), by extending the appeal deadline to 56 days from the date the operator’s obligation to participate in the scheme would start. That would help to align the provisions for appeals under the two concessionary legislative regimes. As appeals under both sets of legislation are, in practice, often made jointly by operators, the proposed changes to the 1985 Act would help to facilitate the practice.
The last part of the amendment would make a connected change. At the moment, an operator intending to appeal against a participation notice must give the authority notice of his intention to do so, either before the operator appeals or, if the participation notice requires it, before the end of a period specified in the notice. Regulations provide that that period cannot exceed seven days. That provision, which allows a local authority to specify that operators must give the authority notice of their intention to appeal within seven days, undermines the purpose of extending the appeals period and negates the benefits of giving operators more time to get the data and so on before appealing.
The amendment tackles that problem by providing in effect that the local authority can specify that the operator must give seven days’ notice, or such other period as may be specified in regulations, before they can lodge an appeal. In other words, operators can give notice of an appeal at any time before they lodge the appeal, except in cases when a local authority specifies that it would like seven days’ notice, or any such other time as may be specified in regulations, when at least that notice must be given. The amendment would only apply in England. I hope that hon. Members can see the benefits that it will bring and will support it.

Stephen Hammond: For my part, I can see the benefit of the amendment and I am grateful for the letter of explanation that we all received dated 23 May. There is one point, however, that I want to raise, on which I hope that the Minister will reflect. It is the illogic of what she has just argued considering the rejection of my amendment No. 19. If we were to change the wording of her letter to read “an authority running a local scheme can serve an operator with a participation notice”, TFL, running a local scheme, would be able to serve a London borough with a participation notice, yet in London there would be no possibility of appeal. We have just gone through that. The Minister accepted that my amendment, which would have given the London boroughs some appeal process, did not in any way affect the minimum guarantee. Although the amendment brings some consistency and order to the Bill, it highlights yet again the completely iniquitous state that London boroughs are left in.

Paul Rowen: I thank the Minister for the amendment. I know that my noble Friend Lord Bradshaw attempted to extend the period to 56 days. The amendment tidies up his amendment and will allow, as the Minister says, proper data to be available from which decisions can be made. The point was made in the other place that 28 days was insufficient time, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to that.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Short title

Amendment made: No. 2, in clause 16, page 11, line 17, leave out subsection (2).—[Gillian Merron.]

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3

Concessionary Bus Fares Council
‘(1) There shall be a Concessionary Bus Fares Council.
(2) The Concessionary Bus Fares Council shall comprise—
(a) representatives from passenger user groups,
(b) representatives from local authorities,
(c) representatives from the Department for Transport, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(3) The Concessionary Bus Fares Council shall undertake the following functions—
(a) determining a framework for eligible services,
(b) determining a pricing framework for the reimbursement of operators,
(c) overseeing the introduction of any national smart card scheme,
(d) undertaking other roles as determined by the Secretary of State.
(4) Before performing the functions set out in subsection (3) the Concessionary Bus Fares Council shall consult—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) local authorities,
(c) operators,
(d) passenger groups, and
(e) such other persons as the council sees fit.’.—[Paul Rowen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Earlier, under clause 8, the Secretary of State gave herself powers to introduce the national scheme and clause 9 contains provisions on how the variation for reimbursement and administrative arrangements will operate under the current scheme. On Second Reading I think that the Secretary of State quoted a figure of around 215 local councils or transport authorities that will have responsibility for introducing and running the scheme. New clause 3 would provide a framework, rather than impose national arrangements, within which negotiations for the introduction of a local scheme could operate.
It is obvious to most hon. Members that within many authorities the five big bus companies probably run and operate a large number of the services provided. A considerable administrative and bureaucratic burden will be imposed on individual councils or passenger transport authorities entering into an arrangement on the operation of the scheme in their local authority. New clause 3 would provide a framework for the basic outline of the scheme to be agreed nationally. I know that the Secretary of State has asked a number of working parties to work on parts of the Bill and that they have sought to bring about agreement on how it might operate. The statutory framework via which such negotiations could take place would be provided by setting up a concessionary bus fares council. The bus council would include representatives from user groups, local authorities, the Department for Transport and anyone else that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, which would obviously include the operators. That would allow us to reach some agreement and would save an awful lot of duplication as a result of individual arrangements having to be negotiated.
On Second Reading many hon. Members referred to how schemes had operated in their locality and the ways in which operators who had not been happy with the agreed scheme in a particular authority had then successfully appealed to the Secretary of State. For example, in the case of Greater Manchester, that then imposed an additional cost of £3.5 million this financial year on the passenger transport authority. If we could agree to establish a concessionary bus fares council, an appeal and subsequently the imposition of an additional charge on council tax payers would be unnecessary because agreement would have been reached between the operators, the users and the councils responsible for operating the scheme on how the broad framework of services would operate.
As I have said, the new clause would not remove the right of individual local authorities to negotiate enhancements and departures, but it would provide an overall framework. Given the Minister has said that we will have an ITSO compliant scheme and a national database, a concessionary bus fares council would provide the framework within which those discussions could take place. That would not detract from the work of the Department; rather it would reflect the views of some of the user groups and working groups that are currently meeting to discuss the Bill and provide a statutory framework within which they could operate.
I hope that the Minister will agree to the new clause because it is genuinely an attempt to strengthen the Bill. There are no additional costs attached to the provision; indeed, it would probably save money because it would reduce the duplication that local authorities will have to engage in if they each have to negotiate a framework for their own scheme. I hope that she will agree to the new clause because it would place processes in the Bill that are already happening anyway. It would strengthen those processes and provide everyone with a framework within which to operate.

Gillian Merron: I am slightly perplexed by the intentions behind the new clause because it almost replicates the existing concessionary fares working group, although it attempts to put the group on a statutory basis. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s comments indicate that the intention is to formalise the consultative arrangements between the Department, local authorities, operators and user groups. If that is the case, I would have to ask hon. Members to cite specific examples.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Gillian Merron: The point I was making before the Division was that, if the new clause’s intention is to formalise the consultative arrangements, I must ask the hon. Member for Rochdale to cite the specific reasons why the arrangements need changing, and why, presumably, they are not working effectively. The concessionary fares working group involves representatives from all tiers of local government—PTEs, London Councils, district, county and unitary councils, the Local Government Association, operator representatives from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Government offices for the regions and the Department itself. The group has been meeting monthly for almost a year, and it met regularly before that time.
Hon. Members might also wish to know that several sub-groups of the working group provide advice on particular issues. For example, the operations and technology sub-group is considering, among other issues, the technical specification of the proposed national passes. It has met once a fortnight for many months. Funding and reimbursement sub-groups have recently been re-established, and we are organising a workshop with local authority representatives to focus on eligibility.
I welcome the important work that the concessionary fares working group and its sub-groups have put into considering concessionary bus travel matters over the past two years, both in advance of the changes that were introduced in April 2006, and in preparation for the implementation of the proposed national concession in England later next year. The working group plays a vital role in driving the implementation forward, and I put on record once again my appreciation of its efforts and involvement.
Similarly, user group representatives—pensioners and disabled people—play an important role in keeping the Department informed about issues that concern them as concessionaires. I recently attended a meeting of the stakeholder group, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from people who will benefit first hand. Engagement will continue, especially as we prepare to communicate to potential users the key messages about the national concession.
We should remind ourselves that the Department relies not only on informal consultation. For example, we have just begun formal consultation on the design and technical specifications of the national concessionary pass. The consultation is open until 20 July, and to the public as a whole.
 I return to the purpose of the new clause. From a recent and informal canvass of members of the concessionary fares working group, there is little appetite for putting it on a statutory footing. I was happy to hear that result, because such action would increase bureaucracy and reduce the flexibility of the group to respond to changing circumstances, and I am not at all clear about the added value. Would council recommendations be binding? If so, how would they be enforced? If not, how would they be useful? How many members would the council have? How would they be chosen? What would be the decision-making procedure? How would it be administered? Who would fund it? And how exactly would it help all parties to implement the national concession successfully next year?

Paul Rowen: Will the concessionary fares working group continue after the legislation has been implemented?

Gillian Merron: Yes, it certainly will. As I believe I said on the Floor of the House, in April 2008 we will assign dedicated people in the Department to assist local authorities with any administrative difficulties that they might have. Not only will we have continuity beyond April 2008, which is important, but we will make available extra support. I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman’s intentions are good, but setting up a statutory concessionary bus fares council could have a negative effect, by taking up valuable time and resources at precisely the wrong moment.
We will of course examine the forward role of the concessionary fares working group. To put a more positive slant on local authority assistance, I should point out that it is already available. The Department is providing local authorities with clear, dedicated resources to ensure that the measures work for the benefit of their communities. Bearing all that in mind, I urge reconsideration of the need for such a statutory body. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

Paul Rowen: In view of what the Minister said about the ongoing role of the non-statutory voluntary group, which appears to be the same as the role that I envisaged for the concessionary bus fares council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Review of reimbursement arrangements
“Two years after the commencement of this Act the Secretary of State shall conduct a review of arrangements for allocating funding to local authorities necessary for the reimbursement of operators under section 3(2) of this Act, and shall lay before Parliament a report setting out his findings.”.—[Stephen Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

Funding statement
“At the end of each financial year after the commencement of this Act the Secretary of State shall make a statement to Parliament setting out—
(a) the total sum of funds made available to local authorities for the purposes of providing bus services and concessionary fares thereon in the financial year just ended, and
(b) the method by which those funds have been made available.”.—[Stephen Hammond.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Gillian Merron: I beg to move,
“That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.”

Question put and agreed to.

Gillian Merron: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. May I say how much I have enjoyed serving under your chairmanship today? Clearly, that will be endorsed by other members of the Committee. I am delighted that we have been able to complete our deliberations well within the timetable. Like a well-run bus service, the deliberations have been punctual and the ride has been smooth and comfortable. There have been no deviations from the route, and no emergency stops or concessions—[ Interruption.] And we have clearly not run out of gas. Quite seriously, Mr. Bayley, I am grateful for the way in which you have handled what is an extremely important Committee and Bill.
I would also like to place on record my thanks to the Clerks, to those who prepare Hansard, to members of the Committee on both sides who have participated so well, and to the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, without whom none of this would have been possible.
 I also thank the Bill team, my private office, officials at the Department and the doorkeepers and police officers. I am sure that hon. Members would also want me to add a last-but-not-least thanks to the Chancellor, who announced the extension of the concession in the Budget. I look forward to Report and, more importantly, to the enactment of the Bill. It is a source of pleasure and great pride, as I am sure it is to hon. Members and colleagues, to be involved in Government legislation that will make a real difference to some 11 million people. It is a central plank of the Government’s work to tackle social exclusion and to improve access to bus services. I welcome the conclusion of the Committee and I thank everyone, including you, Mr. Bayley, for your assistance. I look forward to the next stage of the Bill’s passage and to the implementation of the measures.

Stephen Hammond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Bayley. May I echo what the Minister said? It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. We on this side also look forward to Report and, more importantly, to the Bill coming to fruition in April next year.

Paul Rowen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Bayley. May I echo those sentiments? We have got through a tremendous amount of work very quickly owing to your smooth chairmanship and to the hard work that has gone on in preparation for the Committee. I thank the Minister for the arrangements she made to ensure that the Committee had adequate information prior to our consideration of the Bill. Like others, I look forward to the introduction of the measures next April.

Hugh Bayley: I thank hon. Members for their kind remarks and for their co-operation in helping smooth the passage of our business. I also thank the various staff who report the Committee’s proceedings.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes pastFive o’clock.